Dispelling the misconceptions around Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, this episode guest stars Mr. Akand Sitra. We cover some of the basics, some practical considerations and the way forward (oh, and CBDCs, of course).
India’s Supreme Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India […]
Thank you for joining us again. Please do have a look at the primary data and time stamps below for ease of reference.
Brought to you from the sound forges of Bridge Legal – Episode 2.
Well here it is, as promised!
We almost didn’t write this – I’m still divided on whether to write a piece on a judgment that in my opinion is based on such a singular weave of facts and circumstances that it cannot possibly be relevant to the average company or shareholder; if you’ve noticed, all our musings on this platform always coalesce into pointers on what to do (and more importantly, what not to do) on the basis of our otherwise academic and theoretical endeavours. Light reading of the three hundred page judgment apart (with all the excitement that comes along with indulging such prose […/s]), I wondered whether a Bridge Legal post on the conclusion of the Tata-Mistry saga would make any sense, or even have a point.
If you’re a frequent visitor here (and we know a lot of you are), you’re already used to Bridge Legal’s minimalist and crisp style of presenting relevant content. Now we can’t promise you coffee (or tea, or something a little stronger) but we can offer you a refreshing podcast to pair with your beverage of choice.
Copyrights seem to be in the judicial limelight of late – we highly recommend that you read this earlier piece of ours if you haven’t already (why?), because one of India’s best judges (in our humble opinion) just delivered an important judgment while also referring to the same case and also because we here at Bridge Legal highlighted some important fundamentals pertaining to Copyrights which serves as a primer before getting into today’s opinion.
Let’s face it – no one likes Term Sheets. Lawyers dislike the concept because of how haphazard and vague the first cut of the document can be and business clients do not like the idea of having to read, edit and sometimes even incorporate language into a Word document. Love it or hate it, should we be wary of this seemingly rough and preliminary document that is based on the premise of being non-binding? We explore a recent development in today’s piece.
Lawyers. Latin. Legalese. The world seems to be veering away from jargon in contract drafting and general parlance, but we would like to make a humble exception in today’s Bridge Legal piece (a shoutout to one of our followers for requesting this analysis is in order). Ipso Facto – a phrase that simply means, ‘by that very fact’, finds itself to be the focus of India’s Supreme Court in yet another interesting decision that has wide implications for contracts countrywide.